Endoscopic treatment of colorectal perforations – a systematic review

Mohamed Ali Hassan, Christian Øystein Thomsen, Peter Vilmann

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic colon perforation is a feared complication to colonoscopy. Optimal management of the complication remains controversial. Traditionally, patients have been referred to surgery. Now, with technological advances, endoscopic closure is increasingly performed as minimally invasive therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the existing evidence in this field.

METHODS: Literature was searched on PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases. Papers found were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Trials on animals were excluded.

RESULTS: A total of 32 articles were assessed, including 19 case reports, one case control, three prospective studies and nine retrospective studies. The total number of patients who have undergone endoscopic closure (apart from case reports) and reported in the literature is 203 patients. Studies have reported a clinical success rate of 87.8% (standard deviation: ± 13.0%) on average and a median of 92.3% (range: 58.6-100%). The total number of patients needing surgery after attempted clip closure was 30 (14.7%); another four were found to have sealed perforations during surgery. One patient died after clip failure (0.5%). Articles presented a favourable, high outcome for endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colorectal perforations.

CONCLUSION: In a highly selective group of patients, endoscopic closure of iatrogenic colon perforations is recommended if the expertise is available.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberA5220
JournalDanish Medical Journal
Volume63
Issue number4
ISSN1603-9629
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2016

Keywords

  • Colon
  • Colonoscopy
  • Endoscopy, Digestive System
  • Humans
  • Intestinal Perforation
  • Rectum
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Endoscopic treatment of colorectal perforations – a systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this